How Should We Do Apologetics? Part 2

Last month, we began our examination of four different apologetical methods with a discussion of Evidentialism. This month, we will look at Classical Apologetics, which consists of Natural Theology plus Evidentialism. As I did last month, I will indicate, in footnotes, where I have written previously on various aspects of this approach. 

Evidentialism, you may recall, depends on historical evidence, especially from the Bible, to support the claims that Jesus was a real person, that He died at the hands of Pontius Pilate, and that He rose from the dead as He predicted, thus proving His deity and God’s existence (Romans 1:4). Classical apologetics, on the other hand, first seeks to establish God’s existence by logical arguments, then turns to the historical evidence for Christ’s resurrection to demonstrate His deity. Thus, while evidentialism is a one-step approach, classical apologetics requires two steps to reach the same conclusion. So, why the extra step? 

If we look back to the beginnings of the early church, especially as recorded in the Gospels and Acts, we find numerous references to people and places from the first century. For example, in his first sermon, Peter refers to King David’s tomb being “with us to this day” (Acts 2:29). While the apostles and their early converts died out by the end of the first century, Christians could still visit Judea and see many of the locations mentioned in the New Testament. Though the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70, as late as the fourth century, the Emperor Constantine’s mother, Helena, made a pilgrimage from Constantinople to Palestine and had churches built in several sacred locations, including Bethlehem and on the Mount of Olives. 

However, the rise of Islam in the 600s made access to the Holy Lands increasingly difficult for European Christians. Historical sites from the time of Christ disappeared, as did historical records from the first century. As skeptics began to challenge the claims of the Bible, Christian scholars turned to natural theology to provide evidence for God’s existence. Once that was established, the Bible could be accepted as His divine revelation. They eventually produced four main arguments or argument types: the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological/design argument, and the moral argument. 

Ontological Argument 

One of the earliest of these proofs was the ontological argument, first conceived by Anselm of Aosta, Italy (1033-1109). At the age of 27, Anselm joined the Benedictine order and entered the Abbey of Bec in Normandy, France. In 1093, he was made the Archbishop of Canterbury, England, where he served until his death. 

While he served at Bec, Anselm formulated two ontological arguments for God’s existence. ii The first argument predicted the existence of a perfect Being. Anselm reasoned that if God is, by definition, the greatest possible Being, then He must exist, or we could imagine a greater Being. iii 

The second argument claims that God is a necessary Being, and the nonexistence of a necessary Being (one who must exist) is inconceivable. Both arguments have been debated and critiqued for centuries. While even classical apologists, such as William Lane Craig, have conceded that the ontological argument falls short of proving God’s existence, it still gives us valuable insight into what sort of existence God must have.  

First, Anselm shows that God’s existence is not logically impossible, like a square circle. There is nothing self-contradictory in the idea of His existence. Second, God is not a contingent being. He can neither come into existence if He doesn’t exist yet, nor can He go out of existence if He does exist now. Third, if God exists, it is logically necessary that He exists. 

Cosmological Argument 

Another set of arguments from natural theology actually predates Christianity by nearly four hundred years. Around 350 BC, the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle developed the first recorded cosmological arguments.iv Their arguments did not attract much attention for the next nine centuries. Then, Arab philosophers found Greek manuscripts of Aristotle’s writings and used them to develop the cosmological arguments further.v Eventually, in the thirteenth century, their works found their way from North Africa to France, where the philosophers Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure used them in their theistic proofs. 

Aquinas made the cosmological arguments a key part of his apologetical arguments for God’s existence, called his “Five Ways.” vi In his Second Way, Aquinas argues from the nature of “efficient cause” to the existence of a first, uncaused efficient cause, God. That is to say, the universe and everything in it is held in existence from the creation forward by the power of God. Without God as this continuing cause, the universe would simply cease to exist. 

In his Third Way, Aquinas argues from the existence of contingent beings (such as human beings) to the existence of a single necessary Being who causes the existence of all contingent beings. We touched on this concept in our discussion of the ontological argument above. Aquinas argues that if only contingent beings exist, and they all come into existence and eventually cease to exist, then at one time there would have been nothing in existence. Therefore, there must be a necessary Being (God) who existed before everything else, since from nothing, nothing comes. 

Bonaventure, on the other hand, used a version of the cosmological argument authored by an Arab philosopher, Abu Hamid al-Ghāzāli, called the kalām cosmological argument. It focuses on the beginning of the physical universe and argues that God must exist to have caused the universe to come into being, since there is no physical cause which could account for its beginning. 

All three of these versions of the cosmological argument have found serious advocates in our time. 

Teleological/Design Argument 

A third type of argument used by natural theology, which we recently reviewed in this column, is the teleological/design argument. vii These arguments seek to demonstrate that the intricate composition and workings of the physical world—especially of living organisms—indicate the existence of their divine Designer. The Apostle Paul alludes to the teleological argument in Romans 1:20, when he writes, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power, and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” viii  

The modern design argument was developed by William Paley (1743-1805), who gave us his famous “Watchmaker Analogy.” Just as a watch implies a watchmaker by its many parts working together for a purpose, the physical world shows even greater evidence of design and requires a greater (divine) designer, since it is infinitely more complex than a watch. 

In recent years, proponents of intelligent design have offered two related lines of argument to support their claim: the existence of complex specified information in all living cells and the existence of irreducibly complex systems in all living things. The first argument reasons that the incredible amount of genetic information in the DNA of every living cell could not have been assembled by inert matter without the direction of an intelligent designer. The second argument deduces that complex organs, such as the human eye, could not have developed by undirected mutations over eons of time, as Darwinians claim. Rather, they also require an intelligent designer. 

Another version of the teleological argument was first offered by Frederick R. Tennant in 1930. He called it “wider teleology.” Tennant argued that the conditions needed for the existence of intelligent life in our universe are so complex, so specific, and so unique that they could not be the product of random chance. They require an intelligent being to produce them. 

Since Tennant’s day, scientists have discovered numerous examples of the highly improbable conditions necessary for life, which they have dubbed “cosmic fine-tuning.” After examining the growing list of examples of fine-tuning, philosophers such as Richard Swinburn have concluded, “That there should exist anything at all, let alone a universe as complex and as orderly as ours, is exceedingly strange. But if there is a God, it is not vastly unlikely that He should create such a universe.” ix. 

Moral Argument 

The fourth major proof used by natural theologians is the moral argument.x This proof, though complex in its nature, can be summarized in a simple syllogism: 

1) If God doesn’t exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 

2) Objective moral values and duties do exist. 

3) Therefore, God exists.xi 

“Objective moral values” refer to standards of right and wrong that are independent of human beliefs. Thus, selling people into slavery is wrong, whether or not we think so xii. 

“Objective moral duties” are obligations to do things we might not want to do, or not to do things we want to do. Therefore, we are required, by law, to stop for a red light even if we want to drive through it. 

Notice, this argument is not saying that an atheist cannot be a moral person. What it is saying is that without God, there is no coherent foundation for objective moral values and duties. With God, there is a rational basis for them. 

In response, some argue that objective moral values and duties can exist without God. Others argue that all moral values and duties are relative, either to each individual or to each society. 

The problem with the first claim is that moral values and duties are properties of persons, such as God. Without God, morality must, ultimately, be the product of impersonal matter. Even if matter could produce objective moral values, how could it obligate us to follow them? 

The problem with the second claim, ethical relativism, is that, for the individual, the basis of his morality must be his notoriously unreliable feelings, changing from day to day. They are also weak as a source of obligation. For many people, a self-imposed obligation to be moral is about as meaningless as me trying to stay on a diet. 

When you apply moral relativism to a society, then morality is dictated by the majority or by the group in charge. Atheists believe that they possess the logic and rationality to decide morality, not only for themselves, but for society at large. In fact, atheists benefit, morally, from the centuries-long Christian moral traditions of most Western nations; then they ignore those traditions and think they developed their own morality. As one observer noted, it’s the equivalent of being born on third base and thinking you hit a triple. 

Some classical apologists believe that the theistic proofs are necessary to establish God’s existence before we can turn to evidentialism to prove the deity of Christ. Others simply see the theistic proofs as additional “weapons” in the Christian apologist’s arsenal, which can provide an effective means of convincing the unbeliever to at least accept the existence of God. I tend toward the latter view. 

Some noteworthy advocates of classical apologetics: 

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica. Summa Contra Gentiles 

William Paley, Natural Theology. 

William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith. 

Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics. 

R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics. 

Stuart Hackett, The Resurrection of Theism. 

Edward J. Carnell, Introduction to Christian Apologetics.